Turning up the Pressure in Boston

I knew the loser Pats fans would go with the ankle injury excuse. Brady isn't mobile anyway.

Burress hurt his knee the Tuesday before the Super Bowl but he had the game winning touchdown.

Strahan was banged up all season.

If David Garrard is competent when injured, why can't the man himself be as well?

And how can you not choke when you are a 14 point favorite?

The Giants played the better game, but there are 1 million reasons that the Pats lost the Super Bowl most of which are all the Pats fault for executing a horrible gameplan. I give the Giants credit where credit is due. But by definition, when you are favored they way the Pats were and steamrolling teams the way they did, and had the audacity to maintain that cocky gameplan even after the Giants were giving it to you, then they choked.

Watch it BigPPup, this guy is going to give you the ultimatum.:)

The Pats definitely choked in the Super Bowl, they were and still are the best team in the NFL. The Giants came up with and executed a great gameplan, but even if New York had played perfectly, if the Pats played even 95% to their ability, they were unbeatable.

The Brady injury may have been a factor in the game, but he's played hurt before. It's true he's not mobile, but he is evasive in the pocket, like Peyton Manning, making one or two steps in the right direction to avoid the pressure. He didn't do that much in the Super Bowl. But we'll never truly know how much was the ankle, and how much was due to Giants' pressure.

And this is an article on the Celtics, isn't it?

The best team in the NFL statistically. They didn't win the Super Bowl though...which I thought was a game to determine the best team in the NFL.

SSR, it doesn't go both ways. If they weren't the best team, then they didn't choke, they simply got beat by the better team. If they did choke, that means they were supposed to win the Super Bowl. Which is it?

The Pats were unbeatable? Didn't they almost lose to the Eagles and Ravens both playing with horrific backup QBs?

I know I know, they won, so they're unbeatable. On the other hand, the Iggles and Ravens were something like 14-18 combined at season's end.

The Pats were by far the better team, and the lost. What is so hard to understand about that. That is where the phrase "any given sunday" comes from. Yes, sometimes even the best team in league loses. And when that happens it is called "chocking".

"Shocking" even.

Way to be contradictory you pats-hating minusers. I provide a rational explanation of how they got beat, and you minus me, but when you get minused for bashing boston, somehow that's not alright.

Garrard is a mobile guy. Him being injured makes him slower. Same for brady, but brady wasn't fast to begin with. That, plus a strong 4-3 defense with a good middle blitz kept brady on the ground all game. The giants had the vastly superior gameplan.

As for the whole line argument, no one in their right minds (not even in vegas) thought the pats would win by 14. The point of the lines is so the casinos and bet takers bring in money off of the expected outcome.

We shouldn't hate "cheaters"?

Whatever.

Brady is mobile? WHA?!

sorry, that's a grammar error. I meant to say that the injury would slow garrard down just as much as it would brady, but whereas garrard goes from scrambler to mobile, brady goes from barely mobile to Drew Bledsoe

I minused you because of the Tom Brady ankle injury. That's an excuse, not an explanation. Read my reply again.

read my comment again. I'm saying that the injury made him even slower, which meant the already superior giants gameplan became devastating to the pats offense

To be fair, the Pats offensive line was absolutely horrible.

Steve Spagnuolo flat-out gameplanned our asses. Besides, we had peaked many weeks before the Super Bowl, and were just holding on for dear life by the time the playoffs rolled around. In retrospect, I'm not sure the Giants weren't the better team at that point in the season (and they still needed a miraculous final drive to beat us).

I still think we're essentially the '99 Rams all over again -- torching everybody mercilessly in the first half of the season, then people figure us out in the second half, we need a defensive stop late to win the SB... St. Louis got theirs (by a foot), we didn't, that's life.

DW amaazing comparrison. The Giants were the hotter team going into the Super Bowl. Once they played a tight game with the Pats in week 17 they knew they could do just about anything. The Pats ended their dynasty the same way it started against what was thought to be one o the greatest shows in the world

Now, the dynasty is by no means over. We've got to figure some things out on defense, and I'm sure our offense is going to regress quite a bit, but we should still be better than the '06 version (a team that really should have won the AFC Championship).

But this is what I love about the NFL -- you just have to throw your best team at the rest of the league and hope for the best. Sometimes the best team on paper wins, sometimes they don't, and sometimes good coaching can trump talent (to a degree that you really don't see in other sports). It's just the right mix of randomness and skill to keep the fans engaged, which is IMO why it's so popular.

what dynasty?

you can debate the term "dynasty" all you want, but this decade is the Era of the Patriots.

C'mon, you have to admit that 3 Super Bowl titles (and 4 AFC Championships) in 7 years, in the salary cap era, is a dynasty. Dallas had a similar run in the early 90s, and they're universally considered a dynasty. Arguments like these are dead horses that I don't feel like beating, but if runs like the Pats (and the Spurs in the NBA, as another example) aren't dynasties, then what exactly constitutes a dynasty?

battered women...sounds delicious, doesn't make it right...

I think at this point I'm withholding judgement until there's some legitimacy...

If you consider Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire to be the home run kings, then by all means...

A.) Dynasties don't lose a Super Bowl.

B.) Dynasties in the NFL have always won 4 Super Bowls.

C.) Dynasties don't get busted for spying on other teams.

Oh please... SpyGate? That's the grounds for dismissing the Pats as a dynasty?

Look, it's like this: Like it or not, Barry Bonds is the HR king until we can go back and find out exactly how many he hit off of PED-abusing and non-PED-abusing pitchers, and compare that number to the number hit by other PED-abusing hitters off PED-abusing pitchers -- but they all have to be abusing PEDs at the time, so in effect we have to have absolute knowledge of when/if every player in ML history began using PEDs in order to fairly address the steroid problem in terms of records. Sound impossible? You're damn right it is. And the burden of proof is on those trying to definitively prove "cheating".

Same goes for SpyGate. Revoke those wins if you have ironclad proof that A) the Patriots were gaining a significant competitive advantage via taping, and B) their opponents were not also taping. Until then, it's like rumors you read in the Enquirer...

I'm not saying other teams aren't doing the same thing, I'm saying they got caught.

I wasn't too big on this until the Super Bowl 36 thing went into the topic. A Super Bowl versus one lousy regular season game is a HUGE difference.

Besides, you didn't talk about the other 2 reasons I mentioned, you went straight to SpyGate.

My post was actually in response to Justin's, it was just so long that you replied in between...

As for the other 2, one is fairly legit (dynasties don't lose Super Bowls) and one invalidates Dallas of the 90s, which I'm not prepared to do. And if you arbitrarily say the Pats dynasty ended, say, with the 2005 loss to Denver, it meets the same qualifications as Dallas does -- 3 in 4 years, no SB losses.

I honestly don't consider the Patriots a dynasty. To me, dynasties in sports are teams that have been successful through multiple generations of players. The Yankees are a dynasty. The Canadiens are a dynasty. The Celtics and Lakers are a dynasty. But this is a purely subjective argument. What's funny to see, though, is that SSR's definition of a dynasty will always exclude the Patriots in some way. Let's say the Pats win 20 of the next 50 Super Bowls, he'd still harp on losing a Super Bowl as a reason why the Pats aren't a dynasty.

I'm sorry, but when you are standing on the brink of being anointed the greatest team to ever step foot on the football field and you lose the "big one", then that is considered a chokejob. And that's putting it kindly.

It's not like Brady is mobile when he is 100%, so an ankle injury won't take too much from his game. Did it impact him a bit? Absolutely. Did it impact the final score? Absolutely not.

All that matters is that Barry took them. It doesn't matter if he's going yard off Clemens or the Bad News Bears.

And while this may be the Era and Decade of the Pats, the Giants Super Bowl Win will be far and away the most memorable Super Bowl result of the decade. The Pats were the better team of the two, but the Giants had the better defense, and as I recall, DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!

KD, a immobile QB becomes Drew Bledsoe with a bad Ankle. Injuries are a part of the game, but it had an impact on the score

I watched the game thru the eyes of a neutral fan, FP, (I hate both teams) and I agree the injury affected Brady. It is also true the Giants defense helped make him appear more affected than he really was. The Patriots would have lost if Brady was 100%, and all homerism aside, you would have to agree. The Giants had a perfect defensive game plan and executed it perfectly as well.

my feeling is that the Pats would have won in similar fashion to week 17. They didn't deserve to, but they would have been lucky. It would have been a somewhat disappointing 19-0. It would probably feel just as bad if they had won. They didn't deserve to, and the pats being banged up ensured that the better prepared team won.

The biggest issue is the Hoodie thinks that he can use old 4-3 players to play a 3-4 in a game that demands youth. It's probably the only thing I'll disagree with him on strategy-wise, but it's a huge deal.

This offseason was a mess. Two years in a row, they were a defense that was 2 years younger to win a super bowl. And yet, two years go by and the defense adds 1 starter, who is over 30. I just don't know what he's thinking

i gotta agree...

There were a few Boston Idiots (maybe they seem smart right now)...who declared them the best in the NBA, but most suggested a 50 win season and a competitor in the east, next to Detroit and Cleveland

Of all championships to be clear, baseball is the least...so many things can happen...

This is why the yankees, with a 200 mil+ payroll haven't won a WS since 2000...

The Sox have done well with their 172 mill payroll. The Celtics were hyped as the biggest thing in bball going into the year. Most knew they were better than Cleveland, and the rest thought they could hangwith or beat Detroit

Hi, Celtics fan here who took a lot of shit for projecting them to win only 50 games before the season... and be worse than the Bulls and Cavaliers. :)

Well, your boy Arlen Specter was one of the key members of the Warren Commission...

And that Dallas dynasty was one of the greatest teams of all time. I have no problem with the Pats being put in the same category as them.

I wouldn't want the Patriots to be categorized much with the Cowboys. But it's better than being categorized with the Eagles.

a dirty team that no one likes... you're in...

That's not smug, it's true. I'd rather be a hated winner than a loser that everyone likes. It's football, not a popularity contest. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Hated Winner: George W. Bush

Loser That Everyone Likes: Al Gore

Welp Rob, hope you enjoy your douchebaggery...

I'm surprised that by now, you don't get New Englanders. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF US! We started fighting the British before anyone else did. Then forty years later, we seriously considered leaving the US and starting our own country. We voted for Dukakis, for crying out loud. And people hate George W. Bush because he starts wars. People hate New England fans because they're smug. Slight, very slight difference there.

Why do i have to get new englanders...

Why is this my job...

Aren't new englanders the ones clamoring for peace and concerned about how the rest of the world perceives us...

it isn't about being us this and us that...

Sports is about Unity, not division...and yet you're the divider and not the uniter...

you're welcome to live on your island, thinking it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks...but lets face facts...you wouldn't be arguing with me if you didn't care...even if you say you don't

I argue to assert my opinions. It'd be nice if I convinced someone of something, but if I don't, It's no skin off my nose. I don't argue with you in the hopes that someday you may root for the Red Sox or Patriots. And seriously, my friend, you need to stop seeing things in general terms. Not all New Englanders are "the ones clamoring for peace and concerned about how the rest of the world perceives us." Al Gore isn't a loser that "everybody" likes. A lot of people don't like Al Gore.